Kelli's Cline Shale: An Ethical Dilemma

When Kelli, my friend and long time client, came to me for an immediate update of her reserves, she inadvertently presented me with an ethical dilemma. Kelli said she intends to stake everything on the Cline Shale that Big Oil Company just began developing. Large Independent, another of my clients, has a non-operating interest in Big Oil Company’s project, and their data suggests that if Kelli were to follow through with her investment, the result would be calamitous. Although Kelli is my friend, I cannot justify sharing confidential information with her, so I will rationalize why she should not invest in the Cline Shale using both logos and pathos. I am not asking her to trust me but rather to reevaluate the situation with a level head. Sharing
Large Independent’s “facts, data, or information without” their “prior consent” would be a violation of the Code of Ethics for Engineers as well as my personal code of ethics (para. 3). Disclosing Large Independent’s Cline Shale data could also precipitate legal issues because if Kelli ever revealed that I disseminated confidential information, I could be sued for breach of contract, ruining my reputation and hurting my employees. As the head of my company, I must lead by example lest my employees believe that ethical contraventions will be tolerated. Furthermore, even if I shared the information and did not get caught, I would still suffer the consequences of an unethical action since each small transgression further degrades one’s ethical code, increasing the likelihood of future ethical violations. There are no “conflicts of interest” to “disclose” because my friendship with Kelli does not alter my ethical obligations (para 6). Since I promised Kelli I would complete her report quickly, I cannot purposely delay to prevent her from investing in the Cline Shale.
Along with her report, I would discourage the investment since I’m obligated to “advise [my] clients or employers when [I] believe a project will not be successful” (para 8). I would point out that given the danger and high level of uncertainty involved, if I was in her position, I would refrain from investing. I would also mention that trusting the ranch owner to provide credible information about Big Oil Company’s well is incredibly risky since his actions likely cater to his own agenda, which involves leasing his property for a profit regardless of Kelli’s prosperity. I’d diminish the rancher’s credibility by musing whether the reason he had a conflict with Big Oil Company was because they did not offer enough, which would suggest that his primary motivation is greed. Additionally, I would emphasize that rumors are notoriously poor sources of information since they are usually perpetuated by those with a vested interest thus rumors reflect a false reality. I would tell Kelli that assumptions are not a good basis for an investment as potentially catastrophic as this one. Finally, I’d highlight that if anything other than oil comes out of that well she would not be able to turn a profit and her company would be
ruined. Thus concluding my rationalization with logos, I would attempt to appeal to her emotions. I would evoke fear by citing examples of small companies that took big gambles and failed, emphasizing that Kelli was never a wildcatter and that she gained her success by sticking to what she knows best. I would also remind her of the family and employees that she is responsible for, underscoring the potential detriments should the investment fail to pan out. I would advise her to look into more reliable plays, urging her to mimic small companies that invest in older plays because based on based on my “knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter” I know that smaller companies can profit by optimizing older fields (para 3). I would use generalizations and emotional appeals to emphasize that companies like Big Oil Company can afford to make huge gambles, but Kelli cannot.